Greg Burnham

You and I are on the same page.

Doug Weldon

That's what I originally thought. It's good to know.

Monk:

For many reasons I don't want to detail here (as I do not want Judyth to modify her story) there is virtually little or no chance that this happened or could have happened.

Oh boy, here we go again! First off, Doug--to what are you referring? Like I said, I think it is "possible" that the designated "patsy" was misled by his "handlers" --don't you? And, if so, it is possible that this was his impression. I have NO PROBLEM WITH THAT--and neither should you. However, I'm not saying that--if true--it corroberates Judyth's claims! It does nothing of the sort! It is POSSIBLE--and, in a sense, it is consistent with a patsy's role and (mis)understanding of their own misguided role. This story could have been easily invented by Judyth--no doubt--because it is entirely consistent with events that would be expected to have occured, IMO. I did not say "I am sold" or that it confirms anything about her story though!

If you had stated that it has some remote plausibility I could accept that.

I said, "It is possible, but not necessarily probable." I think that is close enough, since I don't claim to have "super human" powers of prescience, I suppose. )

However, again, the only suggestion for this remote possibility is Judyth alone, whose account now and claim that she even knew Oswald is far from even remotely plausible.

I agree, she is again making claims that cannot be (or at least have not yet been) substantiated. I am not claiming these are true, Doug. I am claiming that I DO NOT KNOW--one way or the other. I am similar to you, in my thinking, though. Normally, given just the hard evidence (or lack thereof), and without any direct interaction with the individual, I almost certainly would respond as you have to her. I no longer have that option...but I do respect your position--more than you may know.

Judyth wants only to go on Coast to Coast and have everyone yuk it up with her as she tells her heartwrenching account with Jim and Ed on another line saying "amen" in chorus...

Objection. Does counsel wish to testify as to the intentions of the witness? You don't need to speculate, Doug.

...only to have you come in for levity before the commercial breaks to provide some humor with your JFK impressions.

Look, Doug--it isn't my personal business to care when you denigrate Judyth's character--have at it, although that is beneath you. But, do not attempt to paint me as one who would be easily duped and used as "Captain Dunsel" as that role is beneath me --and I don't like the implication.

She then hopes her book will sell, she'll get some national attention and then, as she suggested earlier, she will be able to sell the movie rights.

This would be a fallacious argument if it had a point or conclusion, but it has no point. If you were to complete your book, appear on Coast to Coast, and subsequently enjoyed increased book sales as a result, which led to a movie deal--would those things have any bearing on the veracity of the content of your book/story? Obviously not. I get your frustration, Doug, but resorting to .... isn't worth it.

I would suggest Daniel Craig (the new James Bond actor) for the role of Oswald but he lacks the charm, sex appeal. and sophistication to play the part in a realistic manner.

Doug Weldon

Whatever.

Cliff,

I love reading your posts! Not only do they contain valuable data, but very interesting "angles" worthy of consideration, IMHO. And, very entertaining, as well!

But, I don't always agree with everything...

[snip]

When Kennedy went along with Harriman and the overthrow of Diem, and the back channel talks with Castro, the plug was pulled on the Chicago, Tampa and Miami plots.[snip]

JFK may have decided that the US would withold support from the Diem Administration if it (they) continued to refuse to enact reforms in their dealings with religious dissidents and their oppression of all non-Catholics, particularly, the Buddhists. I think it is grossly inaccurate to frame the demise of Diem and his brother in terms suggesting that JFK "went along" with the overthrow (a euphamism for assassination) of the Diem brothers. There is adequate historical records debunking such a notion. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge would be a better candidate to credit with the immediate "go" order. Upon the recall of Ambassador Frederick Nolting, who was probably too pro-Diem--given their shabby human rights record--Lodge was installed. I have no cite for this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Harriman was extremely influential in the appointment of Lodge as South Vietnam's Ambassador.

As for the missing emails. Approximately 15 to 20 emails have now been forwarded to me from Jim Fetzer and/or Dean Hartwell. I have examined the original headers and can report with certainty that I was indeed on the "cc" list of recipients and my email address was correctly entered there.

I cannot explain why I didn't receive them originally. I have not experienced such a problem before, at least, not to my knowledge. I checked my "Spam" folder, just in case, and it was empty. It appears, however, that Judyth was clearly telling the truth when she claimed that she sent me correspondence to which I had not replied.

RE: The proposed Black Op program:

I would like Baker to expand on this a bit, from her unauthorized book, pages 615-617:

"In early November, Lee's concern for Kennedy's safety increased. 'I was invited to help test security problems at Love Field,' he told me. 'I was to see where hiding places might be, things like that. What was I doing - helping or hindering - when I gave my report?' Lee spent a week checking out Love Field in every aspect. He'd be picked up and taken there, then returned discreetly to the TSBD building a few hours later...After their work at Love Field, other locations were also investigated. Lee was working with a Secret Service agent. 'I'm the trusted local native,' Lee explained. 'In a way, it's an honor to help scout out Kennedy's route, as well as emergency routes. The agent and me, we've become friends,' he added, a bit proudly. 'I think I can trust him'...Ironically, Lee, himself, soon to be thrust into the role of accused lone assassin, made many recommendations for the sake of the safety of the President."

Lee Harvey Oswald was a consultant to the Secret Service on Kennedy's motorcade route and safety procedures?

I understand what Karl, Greg and David are saying, but I don't buy it.

Why would the Secret Service need to consult with a "trusted local native" at all? They had an office in the D/FW area staffed with professionals, and they also used advance agents on this trip. (Vince Palamara, does this make sense??)

Why would the Secret Service pick a guy who, despite living in the area at various times in the past, had only been in the area for about a month, and thus was not up to date on any current threats? Why would they pick a guy with no known expertise in security or presidential protection?

What are the odds that the Secret Service would choose to consult with the very guy who would be accused of killing the president whose security was at stake? Could that have been covered up for more than 45 years without a hint?

Stephen,

Just for clarity, I don't buy that at all either. Not for a second. The Secret Service was NOT actually employing his assistance. The part that I don't find far fetched is the possibility that "he was under the impression" that he was being somehow helpful. Again, as the patsey, he was likely told many things that were untrue by those who were setting him up to take the fall. This might be a detail that could be true. It makes no difference to my personal research work whether true or false. But, if he was told this falsehood and he told it to Judyth, she appears to erroneously believe it was true, and is now reporting from memory. I see that as possible, but not necessarily probable.

Cliff,

Mostly all good stuff, IMO! Thanks--

I have since sent another PM to Monk and will try to figure out what happened.

Dean

Well, Dean, I received your email earlier tonight, which stated that you sent me a another PM on the Ed Forum tonight.

Hi Monk,

I misfired on my PM to you. So that explains why you did not receive it. Thanks!

Dean

No problem...

Hell, I debated McAdams, didn't I?

Greg did you debate McAdams on Black-Op? If so how in the world did I miss that?

Im going to check the Black-Op archives, if I cant find it can you post a link please Greg I would really like to listen to the debate

Thanks

Dean,

I debated McAdams on The Paul Garson Show in 1999 (I think that's the right year). This was before the internet was "user friendly" and meticulous archives were kept. Unfortunately, there is no known record of the debate, except in the minds and memories of those who "ear" witnessed it.

Len Osanic did record it on CD and sent me the ONLY copy. It was a "streaming" broadcast rife with long "blank spots" in it. I was unable to recover it in its entirety, and only a very small portion remains.

I regret that I cannot provide it...

Harriman is UNDERINVESTIGATED as a possible suspect.

Jack

I once asked Colonel Prouty about his reference to the "Power Elite" -- I said, "Will you name one?" He replied, "Averell Harriman"

I am not clear who is bringing me up in this post. I will assume that Doug is quoting Monk because that makes the most sense based on a prior post.

That is correct because I mentioned your PM to me.

I sent Monk a PM on May 22 telling him that JVB did not have his email address and that she wanted to correspond with him. Monk sent me his email address via PM shortly thereafter and I then sent it on to JVB.

Agreed.

I have personally received messages from JVB that showed Monk's email as a "CC" since that time. Why these emails did not get to Monk is a question I do not have the answer to.

Me either.

I have since sent another PM to Monk and will try to figure out what happened.

Dean

Well, Dean, I received your email earlier tonight, which stated that you sent me a another PM on the Ed Forum tonight. So, I decided to take a "screen shot" of my screen before replying (actually "during" my reply) because when a member has a "PM" they are "alerted" -- I have been alerted to PM's many times on this forum when I log on.

Note that there is NO such "alert message" -- Also note it says "0" [ZERO] New Messages. I did not receive any new messages on the forum today. I don't claim to know what this means, but...

Monk...I agree that the military played a chief role.

But that is to downplay that Allen Dulles initiated the participation of LBJ and JEH.

Dulles was a tool of the international bankers and industrialists who were the

real culprits...and none of THEM controlled the military. No one person in the

military chain was powerful enough to act unilaterally, and would not have

dared risk treason on their own. But as a group, the military WAS EAGER to

perform their designated role. The military did not control the CIA, which

controlled LHO and other major players like Hunt and Phillips and Lansdale

and Conein. Your mentor L. Fletcher Prouty believed this, and I am surprised

that you do not.

There were many groups motivated to join the cabal...once it was INITIATED

by Dulles. On the cabal active participant pyramid, Dulles was at the apex.

Below Dulles were LBJ and JEH. On the crowded third level was the military,

along with the CIA, SS, FBI, and many others.

The military did not act alone. It was just one of MANY sub-participants

in the organization chart of the cabal. Dulles was the CEO, acting at the behest

of a powerful multi-national secret group of people like David Rockefeller.

Jack

You raise EXCELLENT points, IMHO, Jack! Perhaps I was not very clear about something...However, I thought I kept emphasizing this same word/concept. IMO: the CIA was not OPERATIONALLY in command or engaged in Dallas. I did not say that I thought they were un-involved, out of the loop, or otherwise innocent or disengaged from it. My main thrust is that they were not OPERATIONALLY involved (especially not as an ORGANIZATION) at ground zero.

This is very much in line with Fletcher's beliefs.

I also should emphasize that the evidence is overwhelming that the CIA, FBI, DIA, Secret Service, et al--were all deeply involved in obstruction of justice (the cover-up) after the fact. There is considerable evidence that both the Secret Service and the FBI failed to take action to prevent the assassination. That failure is primarily one that the Secret Service must bear, but technically, it was also owned by the FBI who failed to alert the Secret Service of potential threats, not just in Dallas, but elsewhere.

As for the other entities you mention, I agree. Dulles more than likely acted as the "broker of record" (so to speak) in bringing all interested parties together to reach an agreement. Many of these "peripheral business interests" directly benefitted from the removal of JFK--without doubt.

Impugning the character/fairness of Doug Weldon or Greg Burnham adds no JVB credibility.

They are likely the two most fair members of this forum...

Thanks Jack.

If JVB is what she claims, she should welcome the opportunity to answer questions about her

credibility without being attacked. Her answers should speak for themselves.

Jack

Indeed.

as to coast to coast.... that is a very popular program run by media professionals. i do not think they let prospective guests bring on friends to interview them.

Just to be clear, I'm no friend. Indeed, I am now more skeptical than I have ever been! But, you are probably correct. They probably won't agree to such an arrangement. I hope that suggestion wasn't just designed for her to "get out" of it?

That's another reason why I prefer Black OP Radio.

I prefer Black Op Radio with Doug asking the questions, not me. However, I really am not "an easy mark" -- or a push over, either... Hell, I debated McAdams, didn't I?

Reply to Monk #2907

Len Osanic has told hostile stories about me to many people. HE IS NOT NEUTRAL. ASK ANITA LANGLEY. SHE KNOWS THIS. Osanic is on record putting me down. Anita interviewed me for Black Op Radio, the only radio program I consented to speak on until Dr. Fetzer convinced me to speak again recently.

I am not interested in being on ANY radio or TV program.

I have to leave this country and move again. After the book comes out, I believe everyone might be able to propose better questions.

If my editors agree, I would suggest COAST TO COAST, around November of this year, if they agree. I would do it only to remind people of Lee Oswald's innocence, perhaps (I sincerely hope) for the last time.

But because Mr. Weldon is already on record as having called me crazy, and has stated many negative comments, I would suggest Greg Burnham to be the person asking the questions that he believes are appropriate. I trust his judgment. I have written to him a number of times without a single reply, for awhile now, so it cannot be said that he is rooting for me in any way. Nevertheless, I believe he would provide measured, impartial means of questioning me, with good judgment. He would not suddenly say something nasty, demeaning, imprudent or rude. Mr. Weldon has already revealed his tendency to insult me on this forum.

Though Greg Burnham has not responded a single time to numerous emails I've cc'd him on, I nevertheless believe that he has not yet become hostile to me and would do his best to do a good job of interviewing. Furthermore, it is my hope that he would give a JFK impression on COAST TO COAST. Kennedy has been maligned so much: I think Burnham could bring a spark of life into the program with his uncanny ability to mimic JFK. I liked his comments on THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY--spot on, in my opinion.

If he says 'no,' then so will I.

JVB

Very interesting reply. Judyth, I am unaware of the many emails of which you speak that I have been recently "cc'd" -- I have not seen ANY -- to my knowledge. I didn't know I was being cc'd by you at all! To confirm your point, however, even if I had been aware, there is a high probablility that I wouldn't have replied.

Moreover, Dean Hartwell sent me a "PM" last week stating that you did not even have my email address at all and you wished to correspond with me. I provided it to him, but I reiterated to him that [paraphrased]: 1) I wish you well; 2) Your story, as presented, is NOT compelling--even IF true! 3) and, even if 100% true, it does not appear to add anything relevant to what we already know about the JFK assassination, IMO. -- I am truly sorry if that is painful because I am not intending to be hurtful at all. But, as a researcher and student of this history, I must draw boundaries for myself based on my best judgment of what is worth me pursuing.

After I sent that reply to Dean, I still have not received a single email from you. So, I really don't know what you are talking about.

Now, having said all of that: my answer is yes.

However, please understand, I will not "pull punches" and I will want a list of questions from your detractors to put to you or this will serve NO PURPOSE at all. If you are "vulnerable" due to being less than credible, I will "go there" with considerable vigor.

Lastly, I take exception to your comments about Len. He is a very close friend. He is quite willing to express his opinions to me about those for whom he has little or no respect, or doesn't trust. He has never uttered a single derrogatory word to me about you. In fact, in order to be fair to you, he is the one who suggested a pre-recorded show so that you wouldn't have to be subjected to the time difference like you had to the first time.

I prefer Black Op Radio. If I am the one posing the questions you won't need to be concerned about Len's opinion. If, however, Coast to Coast will help book sales...so be it.

Thanks David.

I personally don't find it too implausible that Oswald "might have thought" he was actually involved in such a thing and, if he knew JVB, could have told her about it. I don't find that to be particularly far fetched. As the "patsy" it is quite possible he was being "worked" from several directions by several handlers.

Cliff,

I think you make some valid points. For instance, I agree that placing the blame on any one group (or individual) is inaccurate. However, my assertion is that the CIA was NOT "operationally" in control or engaged in Dallas. It's not what they do. And, time and time again, when they attempt it, they screw up...and usually they're caught RED handed to boot! So, from an "operational" view point, it was a Military Operation--all the way.

I also agree with you that there was a consensus of several "groups" that executive action was necessary. The loudest voice, the strongest proponent, the most "operationally" capable, and the "biggest kid on the block" with the most to lose (funding) if JFK remained in office--however, WAS the military. Not only had they been reigned in by JFK (through both McNamara and Taylor) as evidenced by the rather restrained approach employed to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis, but JFK's speech at the American University and the signing of NSAM 263 calling for withdrawal from Vietnam threatened to disrupt, if not destroy, the very paradigm under which the cold warriors functioned. Without that paradigm their existence (as they conceived it to be) was no longer necessary.

As to your points about "Was it the military who..." did various things in the aftermath -- I think the answer to many of those questions is, "Yes, indirectly." It would serve no purpose for a coup to be undone by the people within hours of it having been "operationally" successful. Had the military directly revealed its hand there very well could have been an all out revolution--a "Civil War" if you will -- The People vs The Millitary Police State, in short order. It would have been a mess and by no stretch of the imagination would it have been considered a victory.

So, the perps use surrogates. They were already lined up to go. McGeorge Bundy had just signed the draft of NSAM 273 on the day before the assassination, which began the reversal of the NSAM [263] that JFK had signed only 6 weeks previously! I think it naive for anyone in 2010 to believe that the military (among others) had no stake in the escalation of the war in Vietnam.

It's still a difficult thing each Memorial Day to reflect on the names of 58,000+ Americans who gave their lives to fight an ill conceived war, the longest in our history, and the only one we ever lost...so far--and all because the man that was the duly elected Commander-in Chief by the people was murdered before he could stop it.

Bill:

I've had a quick search and, in summary, a (hopefully useful) reply to your two questions:

Gordon Shanklin phoned FBI HQ in Washington around 5 pm on the Saturday evening, and told Cartha D. DeLoach that they had been unable to have the film copied in Dallas, and that the Dallas office has no projector capable of viewing the film. Shanklin is told to “immediately” send the film to Washington, and the film is sent via American Airlines Flight 20, which departed Dallas for Friendship Airport in Baltimore at 5:20 pm. The flight was met by FBI agents, who brought the film by car to FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. In a covering memo, Shanklin asks that the FBI Lab make three second-generation copies, one for Washington and two for the Dallas Field Office.

References: Wrone, p. 30; Trask's "National Nightmare", pp. 121-2; Horne, p. 1346; citing FBI documents 62-109060-68 (DeLoach memo to Mohr); 89-43-1410 (Agents Barrett and Lee memo to Shanklin); 89-43-1A81 (cover sheet of package); and 60-109060-1094 (Shanklin memo to FBI).

Chris.

Good work, Chris! FWIW: Horned concludes that Deloach's "32 year old memory" in 1995 is off by one day and that he actually didn't view the film until 3:00am on the morning of SUNDAY the 24th.

I went to Horne IARRB p. 1220 and I can't find any reference whatsoever to C.D. DeLoach and a commercial flight to FBI Baltimore. Am I missing something?

Is DeLoach mentioned in any Z-film documents and did a copy of the Z film take a commercial flight to Baltimore on a commercial flight?

BK

I can't find anything either, Bill. Good questions...

Good stuff, Bill. Thanks again.

Thanks Bill.

Upon what are you basing your opinion that Bill Smith--who Homer McMahon said was a Secret Service agent--was the same "Bill Smith" who worked for NPIC? Is it just the "same name" --and the fact that the Secret Service denied anyone by that name having been in their employ--or is there more?

Yes, Greg. Same name. But he was well known at NPIC as Bill Smith, not William Smith. I'm quite confident it is him and he can tell us who the briefing boards McMahon and Hunter helped make were for. But of course, ARRB missed him because they were chasing the Secret Service. The young man who McMahon said made the briefing boards is probably still alive too since McMahon said he was young at the time.

My point being that there are identifiable witnesses who can still answer the unanswered questions but those Congressmen responsible for the oversight of the JFK Act and the work of the ARRB have never had an oversight hearing in the ten years since the ARRB went out of existence. Like McMahon, the oversight committee is the only responsible party capable of giving the former CIA employees the proper dispensation to discuss the Z-film at NPIC and require their testimony under oath.

These questions that we are posing are not, as Rollie Zavata suggested, unanswerable.

BK

Thanks Bill.

Upon what are you basing your opinion that Bill Smith--who Homer McMahon said was a Secret Service agent--was the same "Bill Smith" who worked for NPIC? Is it just the "same name" --and the fact that the Secret Service denied anyone by that name having been in their employ--or is there more?

I understand Michael, McMahon was responsible for making the enlarged color prints that were used for the briefing boards.

I don't believe "Bill Smith" was a Secret Service agent, but rather a NPIC employee.

Both Bill Smith of NPIC and the young man who made the briefing boards should be required to answer questions by Congressional oversight investigation.

BK

Bill,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't any NPIC employee technically be employed by the CIA, by definition? If so, are you saying that CIA employee, "Bill Smith", while posing as a Secret Service Agent allegedly brought an "unslit" 16mm film to NPIC from Hawkeye where it had allegedly been "developed" etc.?

Pipedream. The last thing JVB wants is impartial intelligent questions by an unbiased emcee.

Here are a few of the reasons that Judyth should accept this opportunity:

1) She will be enabled to present her case unfiltered, and without question, verbatim;

2) She won't be subjected to the inherent limitations associated with the "written" word as oppposed to the "spoken" word;

3) The nuances and subtleties of verbal expression will be captured;

4) No one will be able to unfairly claim that "she selectively avoided questions" as it will be self apparent either way;

5) This venue will eliminate the awkward delay between when a question is asked and an answer delivered;

6) If she is "the real deal" -- it is my belief that nothing speaks louder than the truth -- and so she should speak it.

For instance I very early on believed that the downing of Francis Gary Powers and his U-2 might be tied to the TIROS I satelite project. If my calculations were correct then this satelite, one of the first polar orbited satelites, may have been over Russia ant located above the U-2 downing and may have, using infared technology, been able to "see" Soviet missle launches. At the time I felt that the U-2 cover story of a weather plane straying off course fit well within a TIROS weather satelite launch and my limited ability to track the course of TIROS I suggested a possible link (although the U-2 downing may have been a bit far North to be able to be "seen" by TIROS).

First, I am finding this discussion thread extremely fascinating. Great research! However, just as a point of accuracy, Jim, it is incorrect to report that Powers' U2 was "downed" [presumably by missile(s)] because it couldn't have been or he would have been instantly killed in the fire ball that would have followed. Moreover, the Soviet Union did not have any SAMs that could reach the U2's operational altitude of 70,000 feet! Powers' was "allegedly shot down" by a Soviet SA 2 system, but the absolute maximum altitude for that missile is 20,000 meters (60,000 ft). It couldn't have reached him. But, even IF hit at that lower altitude (60,000 ft), Powers would not have been able to bail out in time because the plane would have instantly exploded. Moreover, the official story claims that he did in fact bail out, but if that was true, how did the plane "crash land" itself?

Even Wikipaedia reports this [note the contradictions]:

"The 1960 U-2 incident occurred during the Cold War on May 1, 1960, during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower and during the leadership of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, when an American U-2 spy plane was shot down over Soviet Union airspace. The United States government at first denied the plane's purpose and mission, but then was forced to admit its role as a covert surveillance aircraft when the Soviet government produced its remains (largely intact) and surviving pilot, Francis Gary Powers."

I have yet to see any plane remain "largely intact" after 1) being hit by a Soviet SA 2 missile at altitude or 2) after the pilot has bailed out! Have you? In this case, the U2 was both hit by a SAM at altitude and was un-piloted to the ground, yet was "largely intact"! Even Allen Dulles admitted during his testimony to Congress after the event that [paraphrased]: "The U2 was not shot down --the pilot was forced to crash land on a Soviet farm..."

Anyway, I know this isn't the point of the thread, but I wanted to mention it.

Thanks for posting all of this, Bill!